Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Final Remark

My family has a section of German heritage, and one of my arch-ancestors worked as the private, intimate "maidservant" (Platonic) of Hitler in his bureaucratic and daily life.

She told my other predecessor every single night, Hitler had SCHOPENHAUER and BLAVATSKY, SECRET DOCTRINE 1 & 2, on his table near his bed.

This is the reality, folks.

Simon Wiesenthal and Goodriche-Clarke have only stumbled upon the beginnings of revelation of knowledge here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 23:27, December 22, 2013

One day the full truth shall be revealed... Where did Hitler's obsession with the "will" come from? The mystical voluntarism of SCHOPENHAUER. Where did Schopenhauer derive his philosophy? Manichean-Marcionite esoteric Christianity and the "Aryan" Buddhist-Hindu initiates of Ur-Aryan gnosis, Judaism a religion of "unparalleled barbarism" in his own words; Schopenhauer even states Jesus was a disciple of Aryan Hindu religion...

Blavatsky was a hardcore racist according to modern understanding -- merely because her "Aryanist anthropogenesis" and "Aryan evolutionary progress" ideas are clothed in finery of spiritualistic terms, means little. She is one with Liebenfels, etc. The post-Aryan race of messianic hope is supposed to be composed of the elite of the current Teutonic sub-group, which Blavatsky hypothesizes as eventuating in America -- there is no celebration of intermingling of races (except Aryan, Anglo-Teutonic and Celtic kindred-ethnic groups) any where in the Secret Doctrine...

"It should be remembered that Blavatsky's works ... appear to be the result of prodigious scholarship and were extremely convincing in their day. The rationale behind many later Nazi projects can be traced back -through the writings of von List, von Sebottendorff, and von Liebenfels - to ideas first popularized by Blavatsky.

A caste system of races, the importance of ancient alphabets (notably the runes), the superiority of the Aryans (a white race with its origins in the Himalayas), an 'initiated' version of astrology and astronomy, the cosmic truths coded within pagan myths ... all of these and more can be found both in Blavatsky and in the Nazi Party itself, specifically in the ideology of its Dark Creature, the SS.

It was, after all, Blavatsky who pointed out the supreme occult significance of the swastika. And it was a follower of Blavatsky who was instrumental in introducing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to a Western European community eager for a scapegoat." P. Levenda, Unholy Alliance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 11:45, December 27, 2013‎

Why do random bits of trivia based on unverified claims about ones family get put out there so much? This contributes nothing to discussion or putting together a reliable entry on the topic. And the Blavatsky connection though interesting is on the level of conspiracy theory, it could be just as easily surmised that if Hitler had read Blavatsky at all it could be just to pull some quotes etc Czarnibog (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

punctuation and abbreviations

• Expressions like "pp. 61–74" require an en-dash, not a hyphen, per WP:MOS. I just fixed hundreds of punctuation errors.
• "p." means "page" and "pp." means pages. (Doesn't everyone learn that in elementary school?)
• "p.41", with no space between the period and the number, is a typo. Isn't it?

2601:2:4D00:27B:84D1:1B48:BEBE:2AF4 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hitler was a devout Roman Catholic

Hitler was a devout Roman Catholic. His attempt to exterminate the Jews was based on his Roman Catholic belief that the Jews had committed deicide. He remained a devout Roman Catholic all his life. Roman Catholic bigots attempt to paint Hitler as an atheist but this is certainly untrue. We must stand up for honesty and integrity and remove Roman Catholic bigotry from this article. RHB100 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits have been removed because they are POV and non-WP:RS. You appear to have been a relatively constructive editor during your years, so why stop being one now? Vyselink (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

All of my edits have been fully sourced. I have been changing the article to an unbiased point of view. The bias and Roman Catholic bigotry which now pervades the article must be removed. RHB100 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No. It doesn't work like that. Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources - which include historians. We don't exclude material because a contributor doesn't like it, and nor do we include cherry-picked quotes selected to supposedly support that contributors own opinion (not that they do anyway). And for the record, I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm an atheist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And I suggest that you read WP:VANDAL - any further false accusations of 'vandalism' will result in your behaviour being reported - with a block being the likely result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence in the article which reads, "The religious views of Adolf Hitler were shaped by his upbringing at the hands of his anti-clerical, skeptic father and devout Catholic mother", shows that the article is not based on published reliable sources. There is no reliable source which says that Adolph Hitler's religious views were shaped by his father and mother. These are at most one among many influences on the religious views of Adolph Hitler. This shows that the article is based on the bias of writers not on reliable sources as Grump proclaims. Throughout the article, it is slanted to hide or downplay the fact that Hitler was a Roman Catholic and that his attempt to exterminate the Jews was based on his religious belief that the Jews committed deicide. RHB100 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence in the articles speaks of Hitler's anti-clerical, skeptic father. But there is no source provided showing that his father, Alois Hitler, was an anti-clerical skeptic. This description of his father to be completely made up. RHB100 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if you are correct about there being no evidence of his father's skepticism (and I'll admit that I don't personally know of any at the moment, but I'll be sure to look) what you changed it to is even LESS appropriate. I also find it telling that your main point seems to be anti-Catholic and conspiracy theory centered (against so called "biased historians"), and that you did not remove the part about Hitler's father, but merely added POV argumentative, un-sourced material. If you have an argument with sources, then argue them here and let the community decide. Your edits however are completely inappropriate for what Wikipedia (which is not perfect) tries to be. Vyselink (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Correction. If you (and I) had read a little farther down, we both would have noticed that in the second sentence of the "Youth" section, a RS is given for Alois' apparent belief and skepticism. Vyselink (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, these references say that Alois was skeptical and tolerant of religion and that he insisted that his wife attend Church. RHB100 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

These references on Alois & Klara Hitler referred to in the Youth section need to be also referred to in the Introduction with perhaps a name for use in subsequent referrals. RHB100 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ian Kershaw is said to agree with the view that Hitler was anti-christian in the Introduction of the Article. But the link to Ian Kershaw seems extremely vague, it links to a very long article and doesn't say where he states this view. If Kershaw did have this view of Hitler, we need to know where this view is expressed. Otherwise the link is pretty useless. RHB100 (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Kershaw was extremely dubious about using HTT or many of the other kinds of "sources" used on this page to claim that Hitler wasn't Christian, for the exact same reasons that reasonable historians do not regard them as reliable (contrary to the prevailing opinion on this page). [1] --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In the Introduction to the article it says, "Hitler's architect Albert Speer believed he had "no real attachment" to Catholicism, but that he had never formally left the Church". But this seems to be a case of the editor expressing his opinion and then attributing it to Speer just for the sake of saying there is a source. If you search through the article by Speer, you find neither the word Catholicism nor the word Church. This seems to be the case throughout the article. Editor expresses his opinion then provides vague references which do not verify the opinion. RHB100 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

These edits are not particularly helpful. The source cited for the first sentence actually supports the theory that Alois Hitler was anti-clerical by the time Hitler was born, stressing as it does his increasing hostility towards Catholicism as he aged, even in the selection quoted by RHB100. Bryan Morrigan appears to have a personal vendetta against the Table Talk, and I note that none of the 'reasonable' historians concerned are mentioned in his comments - any of his comments (Kershaw himself, of course, did not doubt their authenticity although he did have a number of negative comments to make about the quality of the extant translations and used the original German sources for preference, as do almost all historians of the place and period). The precise words of Speer (from the English translation, for convenience) on p. 149 in my edition (Sphere Books 1971) were '[Hitler] too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.' That seems to me to be clear and unambiguous evidence of his personal disengagement from Catholicism while maintaining membership of the Church itself for political reasons, and it seems to be perfectly fairly represented by the comment RHB100 so deprecates. On that same page, a reference to Tischgesprache is made when it refers to Bormann taking notes. Speer comments 'there was hardly anything he wrote down more eagerly than deprecating comments agains the church', which seems to me the most compelling argument - far more compelling than any of the pseudoscholarly arguments advanced by Carrier (whom I assume is the 'reasonable'(!) historian in question, and whose work is clearly based on misconceptions, an inadequate knowledge of German, and at least one quite outrageous lie about the views of David Irving) - that there might be a problem with it in terms of the filtering of its content and the alteration of Hitler's views. It is interesting to note that on the following page Speer quotes Hitler as saying 'Why did [our religion] have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?'

All in all, it seems fairly clear that these edits are not based on NPOV, rather they are based on WP:TRUTH and WP:Great Wrongs. We have the sources, we have a reasonable commentary on them. If RHB100 wishes to alter that, then RS that support the other side are required. The fact that RHB100 seems to require a - to put it mildly - liberal interpretation on the existing sources, reversing the meaning of what they say, in order to support their thesis, having previously simply inserted frantic entreaties to read the Wikiquote collection, rather damages his/her credibility as a neutral editor. The standard of English in the edits also seems to me to be less than perfect and certainly not of a sufficient standard for WP. I have therefore reverted the edits109.156.156.186 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The above anonymous editor has removed the references and he seems to be just attacking other editors. I have a hard time understanding what he is talking about. Since he does not provide a user name, I think he is not too reasonable. RHB100 (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above, I think there is justification for reverting his edits. RHB100 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Somebody has been through deleting citations. This is not on. By all means add, but do not delete reliable, long standing sources like Kershaw, Bullock etc. RHB100, before getting involved in deeper discussion here, I suggest perusing the easily obtainable biographies of Hitler by Kershaw, Bullock etc and reading the Speer and Goebells diaries. Your comments above about Hitler being devoutly catholic will not hold up against such basic sources. Ozhistory (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Words like devout are certainly POV, but it is well established that Hitler was at least publically Roman catholic and further more that he went after and obtained many Roman catholic relics and artifacts as high priority spoils of war What his privately held beliefs were is a matter of contention and the article should clearly reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ozhistory, please do not accuse or otherwise suggest that I have deleted sources. I have not done so. When you say things like, "Somebody has been through deleting citations This is not on", I find it to be meaningless. Try to use the English language properly. I find the article by Sherlock at [2] to be of far better quality than something that you recommend. I am a person who holds advanced enginering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I certainly see nothing in your qualifications which qualifies you to tell me what I should read. RHB100 (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A word of advice. If you are going to try to claim expert knowledge, you will usually find that claiming knowledge of a subject that is actually relevant is more likely to be effective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be a historian to see through the specious arguments some editors are using in an attempt to show that Hitler was not a Christian. RHB100 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Historians generally prefer to look at all the evidence, not just evidence that supports their prior opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

An excellent article has been written by Michael Sherlock showing very clearly that Hitler was a Christian. The article also refutes the Hitler Atheist myth. A reference to this article needs to be added to the article. RHB100 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Since there was no consensus for the edit, and since Wikipedia does not editorialise about 'excellent articles', I have reverted. I suggest that you refrain from further trying to impose your personal opinions against consensus - because if you carry on like this, you may well find sanctions being taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Now when you say consensus, you have not given the slightest indication of what you are talking about. I don't believe you have the vaugest idea what you mean by the word consensus. I have added well sourced information. We have many who agree with my posts. I am willing to remove the word excellent but your disruptive edits make it hard to find out what the consensus truly is. I am the one who is making constructive edits. You are the destructive editor. RHB100 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No. We are not going to include a link to the blog of an unqualified partisan atheist propagandist in the article. There are plenty of qualified academic historians available to provide sourcing for this article, and we have no need to transform it into a soapbox for anyone and everyone with an opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

RHB100, a good case can indeed be made that Hitler was influenced by aspects of Christian tradition - both Catholic and Protestant (though this is quite different from belief in Christian doctrine). That includes anti-Semitism of course and aspects of organisation, public spectacle and propaganda (Hitler does express admiration for that aspect of the Catholic church). And of course he regularly professed Christian belief in public, a fact which is not evaded in the article. Reliable scholars have commented on all these things. If you want your edits to remain in the article you will have to use scholarly sources. They are not difficult to find. Paul B (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Grump, I note that you still have not been able to say what you mean when you use this vague term, consensus. Do you really have the vaugest idea what you are talking about. RHB100 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, If you check I think you will find that Sherlock is a scholar of such status that he is recommended by no less than Richard Dawkins himself. Furthermore the reference I had to Sherlock provided readers with information they could actually read online. The references to Ian Kershaw and others require Wikipedia readers to go out and buy a book by Kershaw to find out what he says since there is a lack of quotes in the article. RHB100 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael Sherlock is the author of populist anti-Christian books. He is not a "scholar" at all as far as I know, and is certainly no expert on Hitler. Quoting him is about as valid as quoting some Christian devotional/self-help book. The vast majority of the "excellent" article just rehearses the history of Christian anti-Semitism, which no one disputes. The tiny bit that's actually about Hitler simply quotes from his public statements. Paul B (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Historians are incapable of second guessing Hitler's inner thoughts

There may be some who believe that historians are capable of deciphering Hitler's inner thoughts, i.e. Hitler's religion. This is ignorance and stupidity. They write things such as "while historians such as Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian". They do not even provide quotes of Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock saying that Hitler was anti-Christian. All they are saying is trust us in our opinion the opinion of Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock is that Hitler was anti Christian. A far better procedure is to rely on the opinion of Hitler himself as to his religion. RHB100 (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read the actual article beyond the introductory summary and you will find the relevant citations for the lines you are questioning above. If you have a serious interest in this topic, I again recommend you go to your local library and begin perusing the serious scholarship on the issue, where you will quickly find that the evidence is stacked against your assumptions of a "Catholic conspiracy" etc. You might also read up on wikipedia's citation policies and why it is important to cite reputable historians. Ozhistory (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I will look for these relevant citations. I do not assume a Catholic conspiracy. I do think historians are less capable than Hitler to determeine his religion. I do not want to read any books that are not short and to the point. I have begun reading some of the Wikiquotes. They appear to be better than the article itself. I will look for these relevant citations. RHB100 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, Wikipedia cites reliable sources. And with regard to this article, the best sources, per policy are academic historians with expertise in the subject. We do not engage in original research to cherry-pick quotations in order to 'prove' our own pre-existing opinions. As should be evident to anyone with any real understanding of the subject matter, Hitler said many different things regarding religion - often contradictory. We leave it to those best qualified to do so to to analyse and summarise this material. That is how Wikipedia works - and how it is going to continue to work in this article. If you want to publish your own opinions, go start a blog somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well you're a liar, an outright liar, and nothing but a liar. You do cherry-pick quotations to prove your own pre-existing opinions. You're such a thick headed jack ass, you do not have enough sense to see the need for different viewpoints. All you know how to do is jump in and destroy good work without bothering to think or give consideration to anything that is contrary to your narrow minded, bigoted point of view. You're really a thick headed jack ass. You don't know how to communicate. You are incapable of understanding anything that is contrary to you narrow minded bigoted point of view. It is because of you that we have many low quality articles on Wikipedia. RHB100 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

RHB100, I highly recommend that you take a look at WP:NPA. Your response is a personal attack, and is unwelcome on Wikipedia. Vyselink (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

since it seems evident that RHB100 is neither capable of accepting Wikipedia policy regarding article content nor behaving in a remotely collegial manner, I have raised his conduct at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Very POV article

How about get the basic facts out in the opening and then theories in their own sections? Basic facts would be ethnic status in terms of his parents religion, whether he was baptized, whether he went through confirmation as an adolescent, and what his self stated religion was as an adult. The rest is conjecture, and deserves to be there but only if properly identified as such. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.31 (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Trolling in the first sentence

I believe someone edited the first sentence of this article to troll. It says he's a puppy lover and it's filled with grammar mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maarten359 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of Kirchenkampf

Is Kirchenkampf relevant to:

, but in the pursuit and maintenance of power was prepared to delay clashes with the churches out of political considerations.

Italics are where I think it could go. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

problematic citation

His regime did not publicly advocate for state atheism, but it did seek to reduce the influence of Christianity on society. Hitler himself was reluctant to make public attacks on the Church for political reasons, despite the urgings of Nazis like Bormann. Although he was skeptical of religion,[11][12]

I have checked the sources on this and it appears that The person who made this edit has engaged a synthesis between two sources. The result is that the sentence is not true to either source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "His regime did not publicly advocate for state atheism" seems deliberately misleading to me, since the Nazis ruthlessly suppressed atheist and freethinker organizations starting in early 1933, and later that year Hitler claimed in a speech that he had "stamped [atheism] out". Howard Landman (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

speculation/wrong

Clearly some christian got ahold of this article. quite a bit of it is speculation and quite a lot of it is flat out wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:F203:4B00:A493:4F77:D869:6B31 (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And what professionally published mainstream academic sources are you basing your (unspecified) claims on? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Goebbels Excommunicated?

The lead paragraph states that Hitler, unlike Goebbels, was never excommunicated. However, was Goebbels in fact excommunicated? A variety of sources say so, but David Kertzer’s “The Pope and Mussolini” says that he wasn’t. The authors that say he was don’t give a clear source. I don’t have time at the moment to chase this down, but will try to get to it if someone else doesn’t. Bytwerk (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This cannot be used here, but you might find it interesting and it may help you in finding citable sources. General Ization ^Talk 01:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked at that. It begins with the statement that Goebbels was excommunicated, but doesn’t give a source. Bytwerk (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim is he was excommunicated for marrying a divorcee. From that point of view, arguably whether or not it is factually accurate the statement is slightly misleading as it implies Goebbels was excommunicated for his Nazi beliefs. I think that may also be the source of Kertzer's confusion on the point (bearing in mind Kertzer is not technically an historian and he suffers as result from a certain lack of contextual knowledge). I don't have a copy, but Longerich's biography of Goebbels should settle it one way or another - look for the account of his early married life. It was rather irrelevant as he had long since stopped being an active Catholic by his marriage, although oddly Magda (who was even creepier than her husband) remained extremely religious until her suicide.81.131.94.85 (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I did check the German version of Longerich’s book, which doesn’t say that. A books.google.com search doesn’t find the word “excommunicated” in the English translation either. Given the lack of evidence, I’ll remove the statement. Bytwerk (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflicted Article

This article is only neutral because it comes across like the dueling banjos of political/religious views. Clearly there's arguments for and against the idea that Hitler was religious. This is defined by those who wish to distance Hilter from their organization.

This article needs to be better structured with more neutral language and perhaps highlight the fact that it's a heavily disputed topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.200.219 (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Shortening the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Lead section shortened by Ozhistory here. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

---

How are we going to be able to shorten the lead? This article is incredibly top heavy and I think this isn't news to anyone here. But since any removal of parts from the top gets revoked by admins suspecting "vandalism", I feel like in five years time, if anything, the lead will have become even longer than it already is.

Lots of what is in there is already part of the article anyway. Right in the very beginning it starts with his parents and the age he was confirmed and whatnot. I think that's already too detailed.89.15.214.103 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. That's probably the longest lead i've ever seen. 08:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.249.17 (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

discussion about Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini's relationship is not relevant

The discussion about Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini's relationship is not relevant to the topic of the article or the section heading. Hitler and al-Husseini were both anti-Semites, and Hitler's anti-Semitism had nothing to do with his views on Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8101:2029:F083:7D88:CD6C:EE0D (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I might be in favor of trimming the section, but I assume that how he related to the Muslim world is somewhat related. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your Bias Is Showing

Most of this article is written from a biased point of view. It is in serious need of revision. The first half smacks of revisionist history; it is a thinly-veiled attempt to distance Hitler from Christianity as much as possible, without acknowledging Christianity's role in his work, as directly described by the subject himself. Where are Hitler's quotations on religion? Where are his speeches? Why is no credence given to his own words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyheat (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that what your personal interpretation of he said to manipulate crowds matters more than what professionally published mainstream academic sources concludes regarding what we know of his private thoughts? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually as this source (p. 3) points out, the orthodox view is to see the Nazis as hostile or indifferent to Christianity. While the orthodox view may be wrong, it is inaccurate to call it revisionist. TFD (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is Lackey's 2012 book ignored here?

This article does not even mention the existence of Lackey, Michael (2012), The Modernist God State: A Literary Study of the Nazis' Christian Reich, ISBN 9781441197597. Spoiler: It argues that Hitler and the Nazis were everything but atheist, and in fact steeped in Christianity. They may have designed, or intended to design, their own version of it, but then, so do many others, especially in the USA. And Antisemitism, of course, has a long tradition in European Christianity (in fact, Hitler specifically referred to and praised Luther in Mein Kampf; compare Martin Luther and antisemitism), and other core elements of Nazism such as racism and elitism have a long tradition in Christian Europe as well. The argument that Hitler opposed and despised and fought the official churches is a red herring, as it does nothing to prove a fundamentally anti-Christian stance: he was opposed to the Catholic and Protestant Churches because they were not in line with his own ideology and goals, and he essentially wanted his own Nazi Christian Church purged of its Jewish origins, with a Nordic, "Aryan" Jesus as the prophet and saviour and himself as the pope-like ultimate human authority figure (cf. Positive Christianity). The whole concept of a tausendjähriges Reich has obvious apocalyptic Christian overtones. (A theocracy as advocated by some Dominion Theology adherents would be indistinguishable from a totalitarian fascist state in practice.)

Just reading the intro, this article is still wedded to a defence of the apologetic Christian POV that the Nazis were atheist and fundamentally opposed to Christianity as a whole, which is clearly absurd. It is impossible to understand Nazism without an acknowledgement of its Christian roots – Nazism is incomparably more closely connected with Christianity than with atheism or (neo-)paganism (let alone socialism or Marxism, as a common far-right myth goes). This article clearly has a POV issue in that it tries to downplay the centrality of Christianity to Hitler and the Nazis' worldview. (Personally, I'd even go as far as to call Nazism yet another violently fanatic Christian sect, a precursor to Christian Identity and the Christian counterpart to Salafi jihadism – except worse because Salafis at least do not seem to be racist for one, and content once you've converted to their interpretation of Islam –, but then, I've got an obvious POV highly critical of Christianity, so I would say something like that.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Our consensus would probably allow you to cite the book as a source where relevant to Hitler's personal beliefs, but I don't think they would be okay with you rewriting the whole article- it reflects scholarly consensus by scholars like Kershaw, Bullock, et al. Christian BTW, but a ping for @Rubbish computer, Ozhistory, General Ization, and Zumoarirodoka:. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an article about Hitler, moreso than the Nazis per se (though obviously Hitler regime policy is relevant) and the leading Hitler biographers concur on the subject: Hitler was a more or less irreligious fellow, with a shrewd sense of the power of the churches, a long term hope to dismantle them and their central creeds. So, any additions must leave the article reflecting this Hitler expert consensus view. That said, the article already makes reference to minority theories along the lines of those expressed by Florian Blaschke outlined above, and these can continue to be accommodated alongside the existing material, provided they are accurate quotes from scholarly sources (many of the proponents of the "Nazis were Christian" theory on this page have had to basically falsify their quotations and delete accurate quotations to make their case on this page, so again the main thing is that editors follow the basic wikipedia standards.) Ozhistory (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is tangentially related to the section I've started below on the incompleteness of the lede. I would be grateful if you all would contribute your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naplesmedellin (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked this book up on Google Books. The thesis is that Western countries did not become genuinely secular and, but all culturally religious, and Lackey evidences this by doing literary criticism but not directly touching Hitler materials.

I don't think we can weight this highly. We could just put a mention next to Paxton and be done. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete/Misleading Lede

I would like to start a discussion about the lede. In my view it is incomplete and misleading such that it does not represent a neutral point of view. My concerns are as follows:

1) There are many public statements, straight from the horse's mouth in which Hitler strongly, unequivocally declares his faith. This wasn't just a one-time off-the-cuff statement. He said it repeatedly in both print and in his speeches and he was not the least bit ambiguous about it. See: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler These public statements are not represented at all in the current intro to the article. They are entirely omitted. Why?

2) There are indeed plenty of 2nd/3rd hand accounts of Hitler making statements in private that conflict with his public faith, which a number historians have interpreted as evidence that his faith was insincere. I don't dispute this (I myself seriously doubt his faith, for the record). But it seems awfully biased that these after-the-fact subjective interpretations of 2nd and 3rd hand sources make up the entirety of the intro to the article - 4 paragraphs - while none of Hitler's own first-hand statements are included. This is an article about Hitler; at the very least his own voice should be represented. Arguably, it should be the centerpiece of the article. Why is it omitted?

3) There are also accounts of Hitler making statements in his private life that *do* seem to support the idea his faith was sincere. Some of these are also included in the wikiquote link above. If we are giving weight to statements from his private life over statements from his public life (a practice I think is inherently biased to begin with) why are these statements not included?

4) The first sentence states that there is a "consensus" of scholars that agree he was not Christian. Which scholars, exactly, comprise this consensus? Consensus is a high bar to clear. Has there been a comprehensive survey of scholars that I am unaware of that somehow excludes all of my favorite humanist scholars? If so, who selected the scholars and what process was used to select them? This is a sweeping claim and there is no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naplesmedellin (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Note my TP reply.

@Ozhistory, Steeletrap, General Ization, Ian.thomson, Rubbish computer, and The Four Deuces:, do you have any thoughts? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The consensus--advanced by the leading scholars such as Kershaw, Trevor-Roper--is that Hitler was not a Christian. This consensus is grounded in Hitler's private statements on Christianity, which were negative and skeptical. These statements can be found in Hitler's Table Talk, a book available on google books. Steeletrap (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, it seems plain that Hitler believed in god. You can put that in the lede if you find a source. But he wasn't a Christian or denominational; nor did he believe in the mysticism that Rosenberg and Himmmler embraced. Steeletrap (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Read my comments below. It does not matter what Hitler believed but what reliable secondary sources have concluded he believed. I think that most scholars, particularly those closest in time to the Third Reich, used a "no true Scotsman" approach. But we cannot use our personal judgment and must reflect what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Second Discuss-Dubious's reply. User interpretation of how he manipulated crowds does not beat how mainstream academic sources interpret his more private remarks. If we're going to accept user interpretations, his favorite passages in Magic: History, Theory and Practice (particularly the ones about the last magician, the Antichrist, leading the Germanic peoples to destroying the God of Israel) present further problems for the claim that he was a Christian (and I say this as someone who totally understands that Aleister Crowley wasn't a Satanist by any means). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The intro is already too long. The point of an intro is that it is to summarise, so inserting chapter and verse Hitler quotes is not helpful - especiallywhen we are writing about a fork-tongued character like Hitler. The fact that he sometimes used religious language is already stated. Any direct quotes need precise timing and context, but in the end we must take the long view of his words and actions - consider that if you look at what Hitler was saying from 1933 to 1937, you will find plenty of quotes about him claiming to "want peace", but judged against his actions, they are nonsense. The early occasions where Hitler mentions "Christianity" in fact tend to be pretty equivocal in any case - where he is trying to criticise the Catholic Centre Party by linking it to Socialists etc or where is trying to redefine the identity of Jesus away from being Jewish etc. That is why we need the views of historians giving the context, meaning and sequence of such remarks. Ozhistory (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Naplesmedellin I just noticed your question about why your "favorite humanist scholars" appear to be missing. The reason would be presumably because they are not historians. I recall Dawkins has a chapter on Hitler and Stalin in the God Delusion which uses the 1922 quote from Hitler about "my feelings as a Christian" and goes to quote John Toland as his Hitler biographer of choice. Dawkins has chosen the biographer closest to his preferred view that the Hitler regime and Catholic Church were not antipathetic to one another, but still concedes that Hitler had probably turned against Christianity in his adult years by quoting from Hitler's Table Talk. Our article already includes the sources Dawkins draws on (Toland, Table Talk, the 1922 speech), but also provides the more complete and mainstream views of Kershaw, Bullock, Shirer, Rees and others who are more strident that Toland in outlining the Nazi persecutions of Catholicism (Toland too discusses Hitler's anti-clericalism and antipathy to the Pope). Dawkins was not however setting out to write a history of the Hitlerite period, and nor was he seeking to present a balanced overview of the scholarship on Hitler. He was writing a book trying to persuade people to be atheist. So we are much safer quoting Toland, Table Talk etc directly -- along with the other and more complete analyses of the historians listed above - than we are going to a "favourite humanist author." Ozhistory (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

FAQ

New and anonymous editors keep coming to the article and challenging it on the same grounds. They continually find they cannot rewrite the lede and they don't understand why. Should we write something explaining why they can't, and what they should do instead? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In the past, this page has been attacked by sock-puppets, so they may not in fact be new users at all. Can it be semi-protected? Ozhistory (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I could go with that, but I am interested in offering an explanation to reasonable people.

If we ever have a spree, we can go to RFPP. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I see - sorry, I haven't been watching page closely lately, so wasn't sure of nature of changes. Firstly, editors should familiarise themselves with wikipedia policies on using primary sources and original research. Hitler's words (more than most) need the clinical examination of an historian and our introduction needs to summarise Hitler's views over the decades. For example, around about 1933, Hitler made all sorts of claims in order to secure power. We cannot publish merely that he promised not to threaten the institutions of the Weimar Republic without noting that he went on to demolish them - What he said must be measured against what he did. It seems that a number of newcomers to the page re-write the introduction to base it around some comments expressed by Hitler in one or two speeches in the 1920s. This is understandable only if one is drawing on some narrowly sourced websites, but not if one has read any of the serious histories on Hitler. In any case, wikipedia policy requires that we turn to historians for objective analysis, and that our introduction summarises our whole article. For this reason, we can't list every speech and quote from Hitler, but must rely on the analysis of historians along the lines of "over time Hitler sometimes referred to religion" etc. Hitler can still be quoted in brief - but timing of the quote must be given - ie was it 1922, 1933, 1939 or 1945? Each period is so radically different in terms of Hitler's political agenda. Hope that addresses some FAQs? Ozhistory (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It helps. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

draft Faq

{{FAQ row |q=Q1: }} {{FAQ row|q=Q1: "Why do the views of historians dominate the introduction, rather than us just relying on extended quotes from Hitler speeches?" |a=A1: Firstly because Wikipedia policy requires an emphasis on reliable secondary sources, and secondly because of the contradictory nature of so many of Hitler's words and actions. The article covers several decades during which Hitler contradicted himself in word and action repeatedly. Relying on extended quotes is therefore neither practical, nor is likely to accurately summarise our article in a reasonable space. Wikipedia policy on sourcing, such as our policy on [[WP:SYNTH|original synthesis]] and [[WP:OR|original research]] discourages users from interpret the sources by themselves because people will disagree with the interpretation. Wikipedia policy is to regurgitate claims from secondary sources we think of as reliable. }} {{FAQ row|q=Isn't the idea that he wasn't Christian in and of itself revisionism? |a=This is actually the mainstream, orthodox viewpoint. [[Richard Steigmann-Gall]], (who is one of the scholars that we cite in opposition of this view,) in his book ''The Holy Reich'' argues that this concept has gone "unquestioned" by scholarship (p.3), in spite of the fact that "[n]early all aspects of Nazism" (p.3) have been challenged by "revisionist scrutiny"(p.3) and proceeds to challenge it. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036428 Here] is a review by Ernst Piper, saying "'the contention that National Socialism was a profoundly anti-Christian movement endured for so long not because it was convenient for researchers not to prove otherwise but..." }} {{FAQ row|q="If Hitler was raised a Catholic and wasn't formally excommunicated, doesn't that make him a Catholic?" |a=Many irreligious people were raised in religious households, but it does not mean they cannot change their religious identity. Accordingly, the article notes the view of Hitler biographers and historians like [[Ian Kershaw]], [[Alan Bullock]], [[William Shirer]], [[Laurence Rees]] and others, that Hitler came to despise Christianity, and that his government in many ways [[Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church|persecuted the Catholic Church]]. The article notes too however [[Albert Speer]] and John Toland's view that Hitler, while being anti-clerical and having no connection to the Church, did not formally leave it before his death. }} {{FAQ row|q=Where are these historians even drawing from? |a=Goebbels' diary on Hitler, Albert Speer's memoirs, and Hitler's Table Talk by Bormann. }} {{FAQ row|q=What about Carrier and Mittschang's work on the subject? Shouldn't it destroy Table Talk? |a=Yes, Carrier and Mittschang have[[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Disputed|challenged several statements in Table Talk]]. See [[this thread]], this thread, this thread, and this thread }} {{FAQ row|q=May I add a new scholarly work to the article if it suits [[WP:IRS|your definition of a good source]]? |a=We should definitely be wary of [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]], but if you find something directly relevant to Hitler, okay.}}

Suggest following amendments to your first and third points::

Q: "Why do the views of historians dominate the introduction, rather than us just relying on extended quotes from Hitler speeches?" A: Firstly because wikipedia policy requires an emphasis on reliable secondary sources, and secondly because of the contradictory nature of so many of Hitler's words and actions. The article covers several decades during which Hitler contradicted himself in word and action repeatedly. Relying on extended quotes is therefore neither practical, nor is likely to accurately summarise our article in a reasonable space. Wikipedia policy on sourcing, such as our policy on original synthesis and original research discourages users from interpret the sources by themselves because people will disagree with the interpretation. Wikipedia policy is to regurgitate claims from secondary sources we think of as reliable.

Q: "If Hitler was raised a Catholic and wasn't formally excommunicated doesn't that make him a Catholic?" A: Many irreligious people were raised in religious households, but it does not mean they cannot change their religious identity. Accordingly, the article notes the view of Hitler biographers and historians like Ian Kershaw, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, Laurence Rees and others, that Hitler came to despise Christianity, and that his government in many ways persecuted the Catholic Church. The article notes too however Albert Speer and John Toland's view that Hitler, while being anti-clerical and having no connection to the Church, did not formally leave it before his death.

Sorry, not to sure how to integrate these into your draft box.Ozhistory (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion the only valid argument is that weight requires us to present various opinions in proportion to their acceptance in reliable sources. We do not have to defend what reliable sources say and if we do we are opening the gate for editors to argue against what they say. Their arguments are best covered in the article rather than the FAQ. There are of course reliable sources that question the majority opinion on this and other aspects of Nazis. TFD (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

People who are not supportive of the first few sentences of the lede, in my experience, don't seem to read the article and just try to change the lede. They would end up dismissing anything that the article would say and whine about bias. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead says: "The religious views of Adolf Hitler are a matter of debate, with a consensus of scholars agreeing that Hitler was not a Christian and was skeptical of religion generally." Perhaps we could change that. If they are a matter of debate then there is no consensus. Maybe we should just say most. It is also ambiguous because the definition of Christian is not clear. Usually it means someone who publicly affiliates with Christianity, by which definition Hitler was a Christian. The debate is about whether or not he believed in the Christian God. TFD (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we say that influential scholars and the orthodox position question whether or not he believed in Christianity and the Christian God, even though he publically claimed to be, due to X, Y, and Z? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should use the FAQ to show them where to find what they want in the article. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary section: Nominated for Deletion

The summary section is ~19,000 bytes. I feel that it's basically redundant and unnecessary to have a 'summary' section at all; its existence is a historical artifact of the evolution of the article. My suggestion is that we allow a reasonable period of time for editors to either move material up to the 'lede' section (while keeping the lead within the recommended structure of four well-composed paragraphs) or downwards into the body sections of the article, as appropriate. When there's a consensus that the task is complete, we should delete the section. JerryRussell (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, substantially this can go, but we must be very careful not to lose any of the referencing i.e. to integrate it into the main article. Ozhistory (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and article quality

After reviewing the talk page archives and the article history, I'm feeling more concerned than before. On 24 March 2013, the article was only 81K bytes long, and I found it relatively well-organized and easy to read. After that date, the article was subject to multiple edits by Ozhistory and Greengrounds, and grew to 146K bytes by the end of 2013. Greengrounds was blocked by mid-2013, but the talk page continued to be highly contentious. Multiple editors expressing concerns that the article had become disorganized, or complained about POV pushing by Ozhistory and/or Greengrounds. I count such comments by sixteen registered editors, as well as numerous IP editors.

Today the article is 169K long, which is 10K longer than the main article on Hitler. The very long lede is followed by a much longer 'Summary', which is basically the contents of the lede which had accumulated before Ozhistory wrote a new lede on Dec 3, 2015.

Compared to the article as it existed in early 2013, the article now is greatly improved in many respects. It has about 130 new references, and greatly expanded coverage of several important topics. On the other hand, the article now does seem slanted towards exaggerating the prevalence of the view that Hitler was basically an atheist and materialist. Importantly, any mention Carrier's 2003 article has been suppressed in spite of the fact that his conclusions seem to be accepted by many scholars. The extent of scholarly re-alignment in response to Steigmann-Gall has been ignored. I just became aware of this new article by Mikael Nilsson about the Table Talk; it's well worth a look. Hugh Trevor-Roper and the English Editions of Hitler's Table Talk and Testament

As to the length of the article -- the "Summary" section seems to be almost entirely redundant at this point. It should be searched for any information that's not duplicated in the body of the article or in the new lede, and then it should be deleted. The entire section "Religion under Hitler" including all its sub-articles have very little to do with Hitler's personal statements, thoughts and feelings about religion. "Religion under Hitler" is also well covered in other main articles, such as 'Religion in Nazi Germany', and its many sub-articles. Could the information be presented in summary form here, referring the reader to other articles for more complete information? From NP:DUE, I feel that the size of this section is disproportionate.

I'm relatively new here at Wikipedia, and in all honesty I am far from an expert about Hitler's religious views. Even so, I was premature in saying above that my only concern was with the first few sentences of the lede. What do we do next? Just keep talking on the talk page? Or should I go back to the NPOV notice page, and also "ping" the many editors who have complained since 2013? Or should I just boldly start editing?

I don't want to overstate my concerns, either. Overall, I think my perspective is not that far from Ozhistory: I understand why he wants to say that Hitler was no Christian, and I agree that he was No True Christian. The article should be cleaned up, and it should make it clear that Hitler was No True Atheist either; and then we can all disown him happily. JerryRussell (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Toned down per WP:AGF etc. JerryRussell (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The article should not make clear that Hitler was no true Christian or atheist for that matter, just explain the different views and the degree of their acceptance, per neutrality. There is a lot of opinion for outside mainstream literature that should be presented differently, if at all. I find it discouraging to overhaul articles that need major revisions as one can end up spending way more time on the talk page. But you are welcome to try. TFD (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks T4D, I think if the sources are presented per neutrality, it will indeed emerge that he was neither Christian or Atheist, but also some of each, per Pogo. I'll make a few changes and see how it goes. JerryRussell (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, so I've added some information about Carrier's views on Table Talk. But I'm not really able to implement our consensus on the lede, because I'm not sure how to source Ozhistory's claims! I believe they're true, but proving it is another matter. Kershaw? Haven't read it, don't have a copy. JerryRussell (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Greengrounds was a fanatical and abusive editor who vandalised and sockpuppeted multiple pages and launched a torrent of abuse on editors, including me, who sought to maintain the integrity of those pages, so it is a little alarming to hear my name matched with his for POV disputes. Editors will get a flavour of the tenor of his contributions by reading his user talk page. On other issues raised above: the summary was parked rather than deleted only in view of the constant difficulty of editing this page. I agree it is largely redundant and the article will benefit from its integration in to the main body (being careful always to ensure that no references are lost). I can't agree at all that Religion under Hitler is not an important component of this article. Without it, the article will become more akin to a wikiquote piece, where Hitler's rhetoric is untested against Hitler's actions. With an inveterate liar like Hitler, his words are best judged against actions, and his beliefs towards religion are made manifest in how he treated religions. Ozhistory (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to lede paragraphs

My main goal in these changes was to clarify Steigmann-Gall's position with relation to Conway's critique of it. I also re-arranged the paragraphs, hoping to make the flow of the argument clearer. It could be argued that I've given S-G undue weight, but in hopes of restoring balance, I've let his critics have the last word.

In terms of the structure of the lede, I believe that my first four paragraphs (ending with "Hitler's Nazi movement became "increasingly hostile to the churches.") actually constitute a complete summary of the article, and that the paragraphs following that point are mostly amplification and recapitulation. If my first 4 paragraphs were indeed to become the core of the summary, what important points would then be necessary to complete the picture? JerryRussell (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your text only captures half the message. The author argued that Hitler opposed the established churches while supporting a non-denominational form of Christianity. "He takes issue with those,...who argue that Nazism and Christianity were incompatible, both in theory and practice."[3] TFD (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help TFD, I think I fixed it. JerryRussell (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says: "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."JerryRussell (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Way too much weight to SG, who is an author on the general Nazi movement, rather than a Hitler biographer, and who admits to arguing against established views. Ozhistory (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How much weight would be relevant for SG? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well another question is what is it acceptable to remove, in order to boost SG in the lead? I would say it is not acceptable to remove our list of recognised Hitler historians who have written over many decades that Hitler was anti-Christian and hoped to eradicate Christianity in the long haul. But, SG makes an often subtle case too, so I have often found that the citations given do not accurately reflect his case (I refer to earlier editors, not to those involved here). So, in restoring the basics of the original lead, I have expanded SG's presence as follows: "More recently, Steigmann-Gall, while noting that consensus has long held the Nazis to be anti-Christian, has reinterpreted such language in public speeches as evidence of religious influences on Hitler and that he may have genuinely held Jesus in high esteem as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against Jewry." + "[in Mein Kampf] Rees notes an absence of emphasis on Christianity, but Steigmann Gall notes references to an active deity." IIN general in relation to SG, I would like the precise quotations that editors are relying on, so that we can consider them. Ozhistory (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)